Yeah, not a big fan of Islam generally...that said I don't let my distaste supersede my love and respect for the Constitution and was disgusted by the people yelling at American Muslims to "go home" and the like. Also, having spent the last month in Malaysia maybe it's more that I just have a problem with Arabs (or probably more accurately Wahabist Islam). Cultural relativism only goes so far: some aspects of Islam as practiced are fundamentally incompatible with Western cultural values (thank the gods).

HindiDiscoMonster:Perhaps I missed something, but I seem to remember the Romans worshiped quite a few "gods" and had a very active imagination about the afterlife.

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't think anyone ever built an aqueduct or sports arena solely for the purpose of glorifying a god or gods...(Rome had temples, shrines and pantheons for that kind of thing)

The last time I checked, aqueducts were/are built to bring water from a place that has water to a place that doesn't have much/enough water. But you may correct me if aqueducts are really for the purpose of worshiping a god.

HindiDiscoMonster:maddogdelta: HindiDiscoMonster: there was an awful lot of prayer when they did that.

And that prayer was about as effective as the prayers to feed starving children around the world...

you know what's funny? I didn't say anything about effectiveness of prayer, only that there was allot of it, and therefore religion and faith.

/Thank you for playing... here is you consolation prize:[featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com image 350x250]

Since you put it that way, which prayer designed the LM? Which prayer built the heat shield of the Command Module?

Can you direct me to the official NASA worship services held to make sure the gods of spaceflight would bestow their blessings on the endeavor?

The space program was a secular program funded by a secular government for a secular political and later scientific purpose. Unless you can point to the official US Government Religion which endorsed this product, then I will continue to stand on my claim that the moon missions were not done for any religious purpose, or to promote any religious agenda.

NostroZ:maddogdelta: NostroZ: No secular civilization of antiquity could achieve great things like the Pyramids without a belief in an after-life and that service to the Pharaoh affected it positively.

Orly?[www.okeanosgroup.com image 850x637]

O Rly Rly?[www.destination360.com image 415x332]

[www.caitloon.com image 850x642]The Pantheon of Roman Gods

Aaaaaannnnnnnddd what religious purpose did the aqueducts serve?

Sure they had churches. Every society has churches. Your statement was that the ancient world couldn't build anything without a religious purpose. I showed you 2 magnificent structures that were built with only secular purposes. Care to amend your original statement?

Mouser:The one useful thing about atheists is that the Muslims cut their heads off first.

How loving and mature of you, follower of God. At least you're following the Old Testament version of his words. Why don't you help them murder people for not following your beliefs, or are you not THAT much of a Christian?

maddogdelta:NostroZ: maddogdelta: NostroZ: No secular civilization of antiquity could achieve great things like the Pyramids without a belief in an after-life and that service to the Pharaoh affected it positively.

Orly?[www.okeanosgroup.com image 850x637]

O Rly Rly?[www.destination360.com image 415x332]

[www.caitloon.com image 850x642]The Pantheon of Roman Gods

Aaaaaannnnnnnddd what religious purpose did the aqueducts serve?

Sure they had churches. Every society has churches. Your statement was that the ancient world couldn't build anything without a religious purpose. I showed you 2 magnificent structures that were built with only secular purposes. Care to amend your original statement?

B-B-But the Romans had a ton of gods. Therefore everything they did was religious-inspired. Only a purely secular society that builds great and mighty structures counts.

The Envoy:Divinegrace: I have meet tens of thousands of people so far, of those about a half a dozen times I have meet someone and was "Wowed" by their spite / hate / self-centered nature...not just a little bit spite/hateful, but WOW level. While I will not list the names of the people who were THAT gawd awful, I could if I had to...each and every one of them.

So I would say the percentage of people I have meet that were excessively spiteful / hateful / self-centered...so much so that I took the time to ask about their 'Faith" would be less than one half of one percent....of that less than one half of one percent, 100% were agnostic or atheist. I hope that clears things up.

Well, it clears things up but not in the way I think you hoped it did. What you've actually admitted is that you have no idea how many of the remaining 99.995% of people who you thought didn't have a "spiteful/hateful/self-centred nature" were actually atheists. This simply demonstrates that you've assumed that they're not atheists and that therefore you assume christians are somehow "better". Taking this in to account, how then do we know that your opinion of that allegedly dastardly half dozen is not in any way coloured by your own obvious prejudices? We don't and nor can we lend further statements from you much credence, coming as they do from somebody who is so obviously prejudiced.

Just to verify...I did NOT poll every person I meet and ask about their faith (or lack of) and admittedly have no idea how many of the remaining xx.x% of people who I did not perceive as 'spiteful/hateful/self-centered' were actually atheists.

I have not, however, assumed anything.I have, however, noted that every time I meet a person who was SOOOOOO spiteful/hateful/self-centered that I felt the need to ask them about their faith of choice (or lack thereof), that there answer was atheist.

That is not an assumption...that is an observation. Granted I have only meet tens of thousands of people across 20+ states and 6 countries so my sample size (compared to everybody...everywhere) is quite small.

__________Speaking of assumptions, you (and many others in this tread) have made a large and inaccurate one....that I am a Christian....I am not.

I am not a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, or Buddhist...I am a person of 'faith' who has made a life study of faith...how a person of faith (or a lack of) interacts with others of faith...how a person of faith (or a lack of) interacts with those who are not of faith...and how a person of faith (or a lack of) interacts with the universe as a whole.

The agnostics (people who admit they have no idea), and the people of "Faith" are not the ones that create the major issues. The super major asshats (IMHO anyway) are the people who KNOW.

You know who I am talking about, the people that KNOWS God exists, and KNOWS what Gods plan is.....and the people who KNOW that there is no "Magic Sky Wizard" (aka...God). THESE are the clowns that cause all the issues.

Also, you don't have to be Christian, or Jewish, or Islamic, or Hindu, or Buddhist to understand the concept of grace either. You know grace..."mercy that is given because the person showing the mercy wants to BE merciful by nature, and not because the person who received it...deserved that mercy" silly concept right.

I don't claim to know if there is or is not a God; what I can tell you is...If there IS a God...we (all of us) have done nothing that warrants 'mercy' (myself included) and that the only mercy a God could extend to us as a people would have to start from grace. That is not to say you have to be divine in nature to extend grace...it is a concept that EVERYONE of ANY faith (or of no faith) can and SHOULD embrace more often.

liam76:They aren't on par (when you are looking at the attitudes of the people in the country) unless you know how much support they have from the average joe. And that is what matters here.

Except I wasn't arguing about anything vague like "attitudes of people in the country". I don't know how much support the "average joe" in Iran has for the execution of homosexuals, just like I don't know what the "average joe" in Uganda has for newspapers that print the names, photographs and addresses of people they suspect to be homosexuals along with instructions to lynch them. Could be a majority in one, both or neither case; it's hard to say because nobody has surveyed people asking their opinion on this.

This is why my argument was focused only on the volume of religiously-motivated violence that occurs in those countries and regions. Maybe that wasn't clear to you from what I first said, but it should certainly be clear to you now.

Keizer_Ghidorah:B-B-But the Romans had a ton of gods. Therefore everything they did was religious-inspired. Only a purely secular society that builds great and mighty structures counts.

I'm not here to score points.My original statement was that civilization's of antiquity needed religion in order to start the whole process of being great (i.e. masonry, architecture, building big buildings, etc.) as was with Egypt, then Greece.The Romans came in at a MUCH later point in history and pretty much replaced everything the Greeks had in terms of culture/statues/gods.

If you want to reduce my point down to "nothing great happens without religion" go ahead, fill your strawman argument to the brim,If you would only then go back further in this thread to where I talk about the USSR and China as being secular and accomplishing great things... technologically and in the ability to kill their own 'for the greater good'.

Now, as this was a thread about Atheists being hatemongers & Islamaphobes,I feel confident in telling the hair splitting haters to suck it.

s2s2s2:Uncle Tractor: HindiDiscoMonster: Please show me the passage in the new testament which says "thou shalt burn the witch" or something similar.

[i560.photobucket.com image 640x351]

Your picture doesn't match the question.

Actually it does. Jesus is stating quite clearly that apostates are to be burned. Since everybody was christian by default (this was Europe pre-1700s), everyone who does not follow church dogma was to be burned. Jews and witches included.

NostroZ:orbister: FTFA: What I'm wondering, though, is what atheism puts in place of that morality and framework that book of rules to which religions provide demand unquestioning obedience.

Principles.

Next question?

That IS the question of the article and to ALL ATHEISTS... if you tear something down, what are you building in its place?

This article clearly shows that HATRED is what is being bred by the Atheist leaders like Dawkins & Harris.

Since Atheists go out of their way to stick it to believers about how RELIGION is the root of evil/hate, then how does the above Jibe? What good do Atheists create? We already know what they destroy... but this is a VERY REAL QUESTION.

Not all atheists destroy. Most atheists simply don't buy into any religions. You can be an atheist by simply being apathetic.I'm not an apathetic atheist, I'm very pro-atheism. What I build in its place? Truth, reason and wisdom.

Biological Ali:liam76: They aren't on par (when you are looking at the attitudes of the people in the country) unless you know how much support they have from the average joe. And that is what matters here.

Except I wasn't arguing about anything vague like "attitudes of people in the country". I don't know how much support the "average joe" in Iran has for the execution of homosexuals, just like I don't know what the "average joe" in Uganda has for newspapers that print the names, photographs and addresses of people they suspect to be homosexuals along with instructions to lynch them. Could be a majority in one, both or neither case; it's hard to say because nobody has surveyed people asking their opinion on this.

This is why my argument was focused only on the volume of religiously-motivated violence that occurs in those countries and regions. Maybe that wasn't clear to you from what I first said, but it should certainly be clear to you now.

So you are going to cherry pick vague data from two countries to make generalizations about religion?

What is the point of that? If you are just talking about those "regions" what is the point of that?

NostroZ:My original statement was that civilization's of antiquity needed religion in order to start the whole process of being great (i.e. masonry, architecture, building big buildings, etc.) as was with Egypt, then Greece.The Romans came in at a MUCH later point in history and pretty much replaced everything the Greeks had in terms of culture/statues/gods

Excellent way you moved the goalposts there, champ. You make a claim about antiquity, then claim that the Roman empire wasn't antiquity. Duane Gish would be really proud of you.

HindiDiscoMonster:If you want to use the OT then by all means, point out the burn the witch passage.

Exodus 22:18 ring a bell? (Or book, or candle?)

GilRuiz1:If it was such a religion-free effort, why did the leading atheist of the day feel the need to sue NASA to keep religion away from the moon missions, then?

You know, you've made some pretty disingenuous arguments before, but this might be the topper.

One famously-butthurt person files a suit and that defines an enterprise as religious in nature? Seriously?

A suit which was repeatedly rejected, despite numerous appeals? Via a Memorandum Opinion, the equivalent of SCOTUS saying "Stop bothering us"? A suit which has never been cited as controlling in any subsequent case? This is what your'e citing in support of your nebulous point?

Uncle Tractor:Actually it does. Jesus is stating quite clearly that apostates are to be burned. Since everybody was christian by default (this was Europe pre-1700s), everyone who does not follow church dogma was to be burned. Jews and witches included.

No, it doesn't say that. It says it will happen, and it doesn't mean burned, literally, any more than it means they are literally limbs from a tree.

Tragic when even the "smart people" get it exactly as wrong as the vatican idiots who misinterpreted it all those years ago.

s2s2s2:Uncle Tractor: Actually it does. Jesus is stating quite clearly that apostates are to be burned. Since everybody was christian by default (this was Europe pre-1700s), everyone who does not follow church dogma was to be burned. Jews and witches included.

No, it doesn't say that. It says it will happen, and it doesn't mean burned, literally, any more than it means they are literally limbs from a tree.

Tragic when even the "smart people" get it exactly as wrong as the vatican idiots who misinterpreted it all those years ago.

Since everything in the Bible is a metaphor that everyone has a different interpretation of, who is truly correct about it?

NostroZ:Keizer_Ghidorah: B-B-But the Romans had a ton of gods. Therefore everything they did was religious-inspired. Only a purely secular society that builds great and mighty structures counts.

I'm not here to score points.My original statement was that civilization's of antiquity needed religion in order to start the whole process of being great (i.e. masonry, architecture, building big buildings, etc.) as was with Egypt, then Greece.The Romans came in at a MUCH later point in history and pretty much replaced everything the Greeks had in terms of culture/statues/gods.

If you want to reduce my point down to "nothing great happens without religion" go ahead, fill your strawman argument to the brim,If you would only then go back further in this thread to where I talk about the USSR and China as being secular and accomplishing great things... technologically and in the ability to kill their own 'for the greater good'.

Now, as this was a thread about Atheists being hatemongers & Islamaphobes,I feel confident in telling the hair splitting haters to suck it.

Whole lotta backpedaling, goalpost moving, and "my definition is the correct one" going on here, as well as saying atheism is a religion. You're not related to letrole, are you?

Also, atheists don't care about ANY religion. That doesn't make them "Islamaphobes", nor are most of them "hatemongers". Though I'm sure many of them are tired of religion trying to turn the world back to the days of ignorance and fear and it being used to justify bigotry, hatred, and murder.

We're adults now. We don't need invisible fairy godparents to explain the universe, to comfort us from the scary thought of death, to make us feel better with fantasies of eternal happiness and mansions in heaven, and to justify fear and hate and death.

bunner:GnomePaladin: Why is it that some religious folk are so sure that without the fear of eternal damnation they would instantly embark on a killrape spree the likes of which have never been imagined?

I think it has to do with astoundingly overwrought hyperbole and exaggeration.

s2s2s2:Keizer_Ghidorah: Since everything in the Bible is a metaphor that everyone has a different interpretation of, who is truly correct about it?

Since the challenge was to find a quote that was an instruction to burn witches and hethens, not Uncle Tractor.

Well, after a minute of internet searching, I found these:

Leviticus 19:31 "'Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 20:6 "'I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people.Leviticus 20:27 "'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"Deuteronomy 18:10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,Deuteronomy 18:11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.1 Samuel 28:3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in his own town of Ramah. Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land.Jeremiah 27:9 So do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your interpreters of dreams, your mediums or your sorcerers who tell you, 'You will not serve the king of Babylon.'

s2s2s2:Keizer_Ghidorah: Leviticus 20:27 "'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

So close. Difficulty "In the New Testament".

If the Old Testament no longer matters, why have it in the Bible at all? Lots of Christians still use the OT anyway.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Deuteronomy 18:10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,

Seems burning averse.

For sacrificing your children. Doesn't say you can't use fire for other things. In fact, burning was used because of the belief that fire purifies, so burning people tainted by sin and sorcery would purify and destroy the sins.

sudo give me more cowbell:PunGent: sudo give me more cowbell: PunGent: sudo give me more cowbell: FTA: "If you are attempting to eradicate religion oneNew York Times bestseller at a time, like Harris and Dawkins are, maybe it makes sense to go after what you perceive as the "worst" belief system first, then the next-worst, and so on, until the only faith left in the world is a pacifist combo of Unitarianism and Jainism."

Now, I'm not sure there's a SOLUTION (short of mind control and violent eugenics) for the problem, but I think nobody has managed to quite refute his point, either.

Believers in what pray-tell?pro-tip: if you're gonna criticize something, spend a little time learning what the hell it is first.

Believers in any and all gods, including Unitarians. ( I have Unitarians in my family tree and circle of friends, btw)

Well then you obviously haven't spoken to them about what they believe. Some Unitarians believe in god, a lot are atheist, a lot more fall into the Spinoza's god territory.

It's Dawkins' point, not mine; have you read his work?

Yes, but it is you who is claiming that all Unitarians believe in a god of some kind, and if you're going to talk about a group of people and what they believe in, then it is usually helpful to actually know something about what they believe in -cause then you'd know what you're talking about, and that's always a good thing.

More importantly...can you refute it?

Refute it? well I can point to countless instances in history of stark-raving crazy ideologues with self-glorified crusades who felt that the most important thing to do was to attack the moderates within some ideological window in order to create a wedge with which to push their own group think onto the whole. Being more radical doesn't make you more right.

I didn't say he was right, I said I couldn't refute his point.

And, apparently, neither can you. Atheists and agnostics masquerading as Unitarians are part of the problem, according to Dawkins.

Me? I don't have a problem with what anyone believes, so long as they don't start shooting up abortion clinics or strapping on suicide vests.

Marine1:PunGent: sudo give me more cowbell: PunGent: sudo give me more cowbell: FTA: "If you are attempting to eradicate religion oneNew York Times bestseller at a time, like Harris and Dawkins are, maybe it makes sense to go after what you perceive as the "worst" belief system first, then the next-worst, and so on, until the only faith left in the world is a pacifist combo of Unitarianism and Jainism."

I'm unitarian, and I'm totally getting a kick out of this. I'm also always keen to hear from the atheists as to whether they can find any moral or intellectual objection to my "religion" 's principles, writings or social activities. They never do.

/smugger than thou.

Actually, Dawkins does. One of his points is that non-extremist believers...such as yourself...make it easier for extremist believers of ALL types, by making the "inherently-ludicrous" (ie, illogical) idea of ANY god existing respectable.

Ie, the Church of England, just by existing, moves global society's god/no god debate to toward the "god" side, inherently making Islamic Jihad closer to the 'center'.

Now, I'm not sure there's a SOLUTION (short of mind control and violent eugenics) for the problem, but I think nobody has managed to quite refute his point, either.

Believers in what pray-tell?pro-tip: if you're gonna criticize something, spend a little time learning what the hell it is first.

Thinking about it, I think Dawkins goes further, and even condemns non-believers who participate in organized religious activity, or even just put up with it. Been awhile since I've read any of his stuff, though.

I've never quite understood that. Then again, I pride myself on not identifying with Dawkins' opinions on quite a few things.

A shame, really. Guy has some valid points on evolution.

Yep. I think he also took quite the wrong approach on Intelligent Design...rather than getting rude about it, he could have just said something like "I welcome I.D. to the marketplace of ideas, and look forward to the remarkable inventions that will arise from a useful scientific theory, as we've seen from the theory of evolution." :)

I dont love Islam. I dont hate it either. Its just another religion to me, I respect the people who practice it and dont try to tell them they are wrong.

If you hate or fear anyone because of a religion, youre a farking idiot. Your religion and the ignorance it caused in you is the problem, not the other persons religion.

If someone's screwed-up interpretation of their religion tells them to kill you, isn't shooting them in self-defense ethical?

Do unto others, before they do unto you...

Youre either a troll or exhibit A for my case that religion makes people stupid. I just woke up and cant really tell yet

What part of "self-defense" is giving you trouble? My question applies equally to atheists and believers, as well. It also includes the obvious (to me) corollary that if someone believes atheism requires them to kill you, self-defense would also apply.

I'd say to your second point that some religions make some people stupider in larger percentages than others.

Well, considering the track record of Islamic countries towards, well, any other religious philosophy including the 'wrong" type of Islam, questioning why an Atheist is an Islamophobe would be like wondering why Jewish people just can't get along with National Socialists.

s2s2s2:Uncle Tractor: Actually it does. Jesus is stating quite clearly that apostates are to be burned. Since everybody was christian by default (this was Europe pre-1700s), everyone who does not follow church dogma was to be burned. Jews and witches included.

No, it doesn't say that. It says it will happen, and it doesn't mean burned, literally, any more than it means they are literally limbs from a tree.

So even the bible has weasel words in it. Seeing as it's Jesus talking, don't you think he should at least have condemned the people who did the burning? I mean, he's god so he should have known how his words were going to be intepreted.

Tragic when even the "smart people" get it exactly as wrong as the vatican idiots who misinterpreted it all those years ago.

"My" interpretation was the correct one for most of christian history, I'd be interested in hearing why it took christians so long to get it right and what the "correct" interpretation is. Also why you're so sure it's correct.

However, I've asked for this at least once before in this thread, so I'm no holding my breath. It's also worth mentioning that the protestants were just as fond of burning people as the catholics.

8Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

9As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

So, to completely divorce yourself from the metaphorical context that is dripping off of this call to spiritual solidarity, and at that most convenient m moment where you say "Z0mg, Jebus wants U 2 burnorz teh heretics!1!" handily circumvents having to also state, "yeah, Jesus was, like, yeah, a vine. A tree. An actual tree. That's all literal."? Nudge nudge, indeed, oh English major. Then again, the point isn't the obvious, here. The point is where you totally dismiss the obvious as some sort of "cover up" that only people stupid enough to read the bible in the first place could buy into, isn't it, Mahatma? : )

s2s2s2:Uncle Tractor: What does free will have to do with it? Besides, an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would have given us free will and still made us not want to burn people alive.

That's not how free-will works.

Uncle Tractor: Oh, it's a warning, is it?

Yes, telling something to avoid something because the consequences may be severe certainly wouldn't be perceived by an rational person as a warning. What was I thinking?

Well, since we can't assume anything about what God wants and why because he works in mysterious ways, can we really use him and his supposed words for anything? He created everything out of love, but randomly slaughters his followers along with non-believers to teach America a lesson about allowing homos to live because he works in mysterious ways, according to the myriad mishmash of Christian sects. The Bible wasn't created until long after Jesus supposedly lived from a bunch of different texts that were edited and voted on to be put in, and it's been altered and edited and rewritten ever since. Satan and Hell didn't show up until the Catholic Church added them in the Middle Ages. Most of the Bible was cribbed and adapted from the contemporary and older religions anyway.

So, what's there to put faith on? What's there to follow as the "Truth"?

Uncle Tractor:I'm still waiting for an interpretation of John 15 that does not involve burning witches (and apostates and so on).

You can read all of the classical Bible commentaries for John 15:7 shown together here, explaining the scholarly interpretation of the meaning of the verse. You will note that none of them interpret the verse as commanding witch-burning, but instead interpret the "fire" thing as judgement that God will carry out in the afterlife.

While we're on the subject of burning sinners, perhaps you can look up the interpretation of this little episode from Luke 9: 51-56:

As the time drew near for him to ascend to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. He sent messengers ahead to a Samaritan village to prepare for his arrival. But the people of the village did not welcome Jesus because he was on his way to Jerusalem. When James and John saw this, they said to Jesus, "Lord, should we call down fire from heaven to burn them up?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them. So they went on to another village.